Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to correspondence 11/04/25 regarding application 18/476,466, in which claims 1, 9, and 15 were amended and claims 7 and 19 were cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Replacement Figures 5-7 and 9 overcome the objection to the drawings, and so the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
In particular, on pages 8-9 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process because it is not practical to mentally validate activity names of such as large number of activities, because it would take too long and be inaccurate.
In response, it is noted that the particular language of the claims in question merely recite “activity names”, which is interpreted as two or more activity names. It would be practical for a human to mentally validate two or more activity names. It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “a large number of activities”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues on pages 9-10 that the claims contain a practical application of the abstract idea, allegedly because the claims are integrated into the practical application of an improved LLM for automatically validating activity names, which would reduce the burden on manually renaming activity names, increase user satisfaction, and improve time-value and efficiency.
In response, it is unclear where the particular language of the claims in question recites an “improved LLM”. Claim 1, for instance, merely recites “using a large language model”. Using a large language model to determine whether activity names satisfy validation criteria does not improve the LLM itself. Rather, it amounts to using an off-the-shelf LLM to automate activity that humans are capable of mentally. This does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues on page 11 that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they require “receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity name validation criteria, and 3) activity names of a process, wherein the activity name validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activity names, a length of the activity names, or a passive tense of the activity names”, and the cited references do not teach or suggest these limitations of claim 1. This amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. For the reasons below, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination of Fabian and Iyer does not teach or suggest the claim limitations in question.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-15 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
In particular, first, on pages 11-13 Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is patentable over Fabian and Iyer because Fabian allegedly does not teach or suggest validation criteria for activity names based on at least one of attributes in the activity names, a length of the activity names, or a passive tense of the activity names. In response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As explained in the Office action, pages 8-9, Fabian discloses receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity validation criteria, and 3) activities of a process, at least because Fabian specifically teaches an LLM prompt includes the task or problem statement based on the user’s input, i.e. instructions, [0099], the prompt further directs the LLM service to generate predicates for validating the spreadsheet data, [0100], e.g. validating the transaction, i.e. activity, numbers in Column C of Fig. 8, [0107], and transaction IDs, i.e. activity of a sales process, provided to LLM with sample data of spreadsheet, [0106]), and Fabian further discloses the validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activities, a length of the activities, or a passive tense of the activities because Fabian discloses determining invalid transaction number data, [0107], based on tests for uniqueness, quantitative values, numerical values, integer values, nonzero values, and so on, [0100], and determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions by determining whether the transaction numbers are duplicates or incomplete, [0107]. In other words, Fabian validates activity spreadsheet data using transaction IDs based on their attributes (uniqueness, quantitative values, numerical values, integer values, nonzero values). The spreadsheet data validated by Fabian is shown below, reproduced from Figure 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names. As seen above, the transactions in the spreadsheet have numbers, not names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]). In fact, Iyer specifically states “Also, in some embodiments, the corrective module outputs an activity name and its corresponding number such that the user accesses the activity for modifying the activity, when the activity violates the set of rules or the activity contains flaws.” Thus Fabian discloses prompting an LLM to validate spreadsheet activity data having activity numbers, and Iyer discloses validating activity names and corresponding numbers.
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names in order to identify and remove potential flaws in workflows, as suggested by Iyer ([0003]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of reducing manual testing of workflows, which is a time consuming and costly procedure, as suggested by Iyer ([0003]).
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that Iyer only discloses outputting an activity name when the activity violets a set of rules or when the activity contains flaws, not when the activity name itself violates rules or contains flaws. This does not show nonobviousness, however, because the rejection only relies on Iyer to teach “activity names” (Page 10, Non-Final Rejection 08/05/25). One skilled in the art of spreadsheet data validation at filing time would have immediately recognized that “activity name” is an attribute of an “activity” such as a transaction similar to “Transaction No.”, “Transaction ID” etc. disclosed by Fabian. It is maintained that the Fabian-Iyer combination renders obvious validating the activity names themselves.
Finally, on page 14 Applicant argues that the combination of Fabian with Iyer relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning, because the combination would purportedly result in outputting names of spreadsheets that violet a set of rules or have flaws. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the combination would have resulted in outputting names of activities that violate a set of rules or have flaws. The spreadsheet is a form in which the activities in Fabian are stored for the LLM to retrieve cell data, and any names of the spreadsheets are unrelated to the validating of the activity attributes disclosed by Fabian. In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner agrees with Applicant on page 15 that no new matter was added via the amendments to claims 1, 9, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity name validation criteria, and 3) activity names of a process; determining whether the activity names satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions; and outputting results of the determining”.
The limitation of receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity name validation criteria, and 3) activity names of a process, wherein the activity name validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activity names, a length of the activity names, or a passive tense of the activity names, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity name validation criteria, and 3) activity names of a process, wherein the activity name validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activity names, a length of the activity names, or a passive tense of the activity names” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving a sheet of paper with one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity name validation criteria, and 3) activity names of a process and mentally considering validation criteria based on at least one of attributes in the activity names, a length of the activity names, and a passive tense of the activity name.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining whether the activity names satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for “using a large language model”, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, but for “using a large language model”, “determining whether the activity names satisfy the validation criteria … based on the instructions” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining whether the activity names satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions.
Similarly, the limitation of “outputting results of the determining”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting results of the determining” in the context of this claim encompasses outputting results of the determining to the sheet of paper using a pen.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – “computer” and “using a large language model”. The computing elements in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general purpose computer and general purpose large language model) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the method amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 1 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of validating data, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Dependent claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claims 2-8 merely recite additional steps for validating data, all of which could be performed mentally or by writing down relationships with a pen and paper, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “determining whether the activity names satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: identifying one or more of the activity names that do not satisfy the validation criteria” which could be performed by mentally identifying one or more of the activity names that do not satisfy the validation criteria.
Claim 3 recites “ identifying one or more of the activity names that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating a description as to why the one or more identified activity names do not satisfy the validation criteria” which could be performed by mentally generating and writing down a description as to why the one or more identified activity names do not satisfy the validation criteria.
Claim 4 recites “ generating a description as to why the one or more identified activity names do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: grouping the one or more identified activity names based on a type of the validation criteria that is not satisfied” which could be performed by mentally grouping and writing down the one or more identified activity names based on a type of the validation criteria that is not satisfied.
Claim 5 recites “ identifying one or more of the activity names that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating recommendations for revising the one or more identified activity names to satisfy the validation criteria” which could be performed by mentally generating and writing down recommendations for revising the one or more identified activity names to satisfy the validation criteria.
Claim 6 recites “ determining whether the activity names satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: generating an indication that the activity names satisfy the validation criteria” which could be performed by mentally generating and writing down an indication that the activity names satisfy the validation criteria.
Claim 8 recites “the process is an RPA (robotic process automation) workflow executed by one or more RPA robots” which merely recites additional computing elements at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general purpose RPA workflow and general purpose RPA robot) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements.
Evidence that RPA workflow robots were generic computer elements includes:
US 11157339 Dines discloses RPA workflow (Col 5 lines 16-18) and RPA robot (title).
US 20220100539 Madkour discloses robotic process automation robots and RPA workflows ([0013] and [0041]).
US 20220107624 Amin discloses RPA workflow (Abstract) and process automation robots (title).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In sum, claims 2-6 and 8 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-6 and 8 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-6 and 8 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-6 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is directed to a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set for the above with respect to claim 1. While claim 9 additionally recites generic computer components (memory, computer program instructions, processor), such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic memory, computer instructions, and processor performing a generic computer function) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-14 depend from claim 9, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 9, and contain subject matter that corresponds to that in dependent claims 2-6 respectively, discussed above. These claims are therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 2-6 and 9 above.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that corresponds to the system of claim 9 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9. Moreover, while claim 15 recites generic computing components (e.g., computer, processor, instructions), such components are only claimed at a high-level of generality and are not sufficient to render the claim subject matter eligible for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 9.
Claims 16-18 and 20 depend from claim 15, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 15, and contain subject matter that corresponds to that in dependent claims 2-4 and 8 respectively, discussed above. These claims are therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 2-4, 8, and 15 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabian et al. (US 20240303421) in view of Iyer et al. (US 20210191367)
Consider claim 1, Fabian discloses a computer-implemented method (computer system implementing process, Fig. 13, [0127]) comprising:
receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity validation criteria, and 3) activities of a process (the prompt includes the task or problem statement based on the user’s input, i.e. instructions, [0099], the prompt further directs the LLM service to generate predicates for validating the spreadsheet data, [0100], e.g. validating the transaction, i.e. activity, numbers in Column C of Fig. 8, [0107], and transaction IDs, i.e. activity of a sales process, provided to LLM with sample data of spreadsheet, [0106]), wherein the validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activities, a length of the activities, or a passive tense of the activities (e.g. invalid transaction number data, [0107], based on tests for uniqueness, quantitative values, numerical values, integer values, nonzero values, and so on, [0100]);
determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions (whether the transaction numbers are duplicates or incomplete, [0107]); and
outputting results of the determining (when spreadsheet data fails the predicates, application service provides user with option to clean or prepare the data with a suggested formula or calculated column, [0105]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names in order to identify and remove potential flaws in workflows, as suggested by Iyer ([0003]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of reducing manual testing of workflows, which is a time consuming and costly procedure, as suggested by Iyer ([0003]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of text analysis.
Consider claim 9, Fabian discloses a system (processing system, Fig 13, [013]) comprising: a memory storing computer program instructions (memory storing software instructions, [0131]-[0135]); and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program instructions (processors executing software instructions, [0131]-[0135]), the computer program instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to perform operations of:
receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity validation criteria, and 3) activities of a process (the prompt includes the task or problem statement based on the user’s input, i.e. instructions, [0099], the prompt further directs the LLM service to generate predicates for validating the spreadsheet data, [0100], e.g. validating the transaction, i.e. activity, numbers in Column C of Fig. 8, [0107], and transaction IDs, i.e. activity of a sales process, provided to LLM with sample data of spreadsheet, [0106]), wherein the validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activities, a length of the activities, or a passive tense of the activities (e.g. invalid transaction number data, [0107], based on tests for uniqueness, quantitative values, numerical values, integer values, nonzero values, and so on, [0100]);
determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions (whether the transaction numbers are duplicates or incomplete, [0107]); and
outputting results of the determining (when spreadsheet data fails the predicates, application service provides user with option to clean or prepare the data with a suggested formula or calculated column, [0105]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 15, Fabian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program instructions (semiconductor based memory storing software, [0136]), the computer program instructions, when executed on at least one processor (processors executing software instructions, [0131]-[0135]), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving one or more prompts defining 1) instructions, 2) activity validation criteria, and 3) activities of a process (the prompt includes the task or problem statement based on the user’s input, i.e. instructions, [0099], the prompt further directs the LLM service to generate predicates for validating the spreadsheet data, [0100], e.g. validating the transaction, i.e. activity, numbers in Column C of Fig. 8, [0107], and transaction IDs, i.e. activity of a sales process, provided to LLM with sample data of spreadsheet, [0106]), wherein the validation criteria are based on at least one of attributes in the activities, a length of the activities, or a passive tense of the activities (e.g. invalid transaction number data, [0107], based on tests for uniqueness, quantitative values, numerical values, integer values, nonzero values, and so on, [0100]);
determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions (whether the transaction numbers are duplicates or incomplete, [0107]); and
outputting results of the determining (when spreadsheet data fails the predicates, application service provides user with option to clean or prepare the data with a suggested formula or calculated column, [0105]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Fabian discloses determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria (e.g. transactions in rows 3, 6, and 7 having missing or invalid transaction number data, [0107], Fig. 8).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 3, Fabian discloses identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating a description as to why the one or more identified activities do not satisfy the validation criteria (e.g. presenting a response in a chat interface indicating that rows of data are duplicative, [0097], [0107]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 4, Fabian discloses generating a description as to why the one or more identified activities do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: grouping the one or more identified activities based on a type of the validation criteria that is not satisfied (e.g. row 14 duplicates row 8 and rows 3, 6, and 7 having missing or invalid transaction number data, [0107], [0097]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 5, Fabian discloses identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating recommendations for revising the one or more identified activities to satisfy the validation criteria (determining and suggesting the preparatory steps for data that violates the predicate, [0106-0107], [0097]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 6, Fabian discloses determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: generating an indication that the activities satisfy the validation criteria (generating the solution, such as the calculated column for sales commissions, [0105-0108], Fig. 8).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 8, Fabian does not, but Iyer discloses the process is an RPA (robotic process automation) workflow executed by one or more RPA robots (RPA system includes client computing system running robots, [0046], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian such that the process is an RPA (robotic process automation) workflow executed by one or more RPA robots for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 10, Fabian discloses determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria (e.g. transactions in rows 3, 6, and 7 having missing or invalid transaction number data, [0107], Fig. 8).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 11, Fabian discloses identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating a description as to why the one or more identified activities do not satisfy the validation criteria (e.g. presenting a response in a chat interface indicating that rows of data are duplicative, [0097], [0107]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 12, Fabian discloses generating a description as to why the one or more identified activities do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: grouping the one or more identified activities based on a type of the validation criteria that is not satisfied (e.g. row 14 duplicates row 8 and rows 3, 6, and 7 having missing or invalid transaction number data, [0107], [0097]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 13, Fabian discloses identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating recommendations for revising the one or more identified activities to satisfy the validation criteria (determining and suggesting the preparatory steps for data that violates the predicate, [0106-0107], [0097]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 14, Fabian discloses determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: generating an indication that the activities satisfy the validation criteria (generating the solution, such as the calculated column for sales commissions, [0105-0108], Fig. 8).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 16, Fabian discloses determining whether the activities satisfy the validation criteria using a large language model based on the instructions comprises: identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria (e.g. transactions in rows 3, 6, and 7 having missing or invalid transaction number data, [0107], Fig. 8).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 17, Fabian discloses identifying one or more of the activities that do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: generating a description as to why the one or more identified activities do not satisfy the validation criteria (e.g. presenting a response in a chat interface indicating that rows of data are duplicative, [0097], [0107]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 18, Fabian discloses generating a description as to why the one or more identified activities do not satisfy the validation criteria comprises: grouping the one or more identified activities based on a type of the validation criteria that is not satisfied (e.g. row 14 duplicates row 8 and rows 3, 6, and 7 having missing or invalid transaction number data, [0107], [0097]).
Fabian does not specifically mention activity names.
Iyer discloses activity names (activity name and its corresponding number, [0081], for activities that fail the set of rules validation, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian by including activity names for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 20, Fabian does not, but Iyer discloses the process is an RPA (robotic process automation) workflow executed by one or more RPA robots (RPA system includes client computing system running robots, [0046], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fabian such that the process is an RPA (robotic process automation) workflow executed by one or more RPA robots for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 12/01/25